Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Their actual warranty statement:
http://www.pureoil.com/warranty.htm
Guys and gals - never, ever read their marketing hype and believe it to be a legal document.
They have a written limited warranty, in compliance with the FTC laws and regulations.
Read this about warranty:
http://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/businesspersons-guide-federal-warranty-law
A direct quote from their written limited warranty:
Quote:
...which was properly installed and changed following the engine manufacturer's recommended service intervals and was in accord with current Purolator catalog recommendations, ...
I do not think anyone was reading the information on the label or website and using it as a "warranty claim", but instead the recommended intervals which it can be used. For myself--the information is conflicting at best and misleading at worst. Unless the packaging has changed in recent times, the image that I posted is on the back of each Classic and P1 so one could be 'misled' into assuming the filter is good for the intervals (which seem to be only a suggestion) listed. As marketing information goes both FRAM and WIX seem to be much more transparent and to the point than Purolator.
Good point.
I didn't mean to imply that all folks take the marketing hype for facts, but there are those that think the "recommendation" on the box is the official limit.
The Limited Warranty statement clearly defines the FCI as equal to the OEM defined limit.
In many older vehicles, that is a static limit of X miles or Y months, depending upon service factor.
In many newer vehicle, those limits are larger, or there is an IOLM that sets the limits.
It's ironic that my 2007 MGM would indicate a 5k mile FCI for a Classic, but my 2000 Galant would be 15k miles for a Classic FCI. But technically, both would be the official limit based upon OEM application.
Which brings some amount of question into the realm of the topic. Two of them, actually ...
Say one has an IOLM and you follow it. And you take off a filter and discover some failure of the filter. Their written warranty says nothing about FILTER replacement or reimbursement; it ONLY speaks to the damage possibly incurred by the vehicle. I would presume they would (out of good customer relations) offer another filter, a coupon, etc. (not that I'd want another WCOD at this point .....)
Secondly, what if the engine itself is damaged. You can send them the filter, but they'll have to send a tech out to examine the engine. In this case, they may be able to see the IOLM, if someone has not reset it already ... If it's been reset, they have no idea what the FCI was. You cannot even look at a historical record, because any change (pro or con) to the driving pattern during the FCI would be UNIQUE to that FCI duration!
How do they know what your OCI exposure has been? Especially with IOLMs now, there's no real set expectation for a distance. How does the Purolator evidence team who reviews the info really know exactly how many miles were on the filter, other than what the customer would tell them? In this example, if the IOLM was at or near "O"%, it would be deemed reasonable to presume the products (oil and filter) were appropriately used and not abused. So how does a hole in the filter media indicate that the filter was over-loaded with particulate, when the IOLM did not indicate a change was overdue?
Generally, I see this one particular example as a wee-poor attempt from Puro to discard a complaint. If the OP indicated the IOLM was still in a serviceable state, then how is it that the media was past it's capacity by OEM definition? The written warranty states to follow the OEM directives; follow the IOLM and everything should be covered. Frankly, I'd be miffed if that is the answer I got back, and I'd press for more details. That alone would make me want to quit purchasing the product; poor customer serivce irks me to no end.
... you only read half of their use statement. Those blinders are hard to get off.
